ucim wrote:The thing is, these structures are power structures, and there is a kind of "survival instinct" to power structures. Those on top want to stay on top, and they have the power to do so.

Just to clarify, what I meant by "those on top" isn't "those power structures presently in power want to stay on top" but "those people who, within a power structure, are on top want to stay on top" While the former is true (and pertains directly to survival of the fittest), the latter is what generates the "survival instinct" which I claim that power structures themselves have.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

The people in real power in my life have always been men. And men LOVE-LOVE domination. They talk about it constantly. When I was at the rehab center a guy said I, "Dominated him in basketball." It's that fixation on dominance and submission that is the root cause of most sexual harassment/abuse I have experienced by men. Women do it a bit differently. They like to toy with your head and emotions more. I was toyed with so much by mean women that I'm afraid of pretty-pretty ladies now. The sexual harassment epidemic extends into normal conversations: Rape jokes, cajoling a woman to dress prettier/wear makeup/be more ladylike. And parents teach their children to forgive and forget sexual harassers. It's terrible.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

Thesh wrote:I didn't say academia was bad at its job... What I did say was that the things we are debating are likely outside the scope of CorruptUser's education...

The job of colleges is to give teach people stuff. CorruptUser has a degree in economics. You claim that CorruptUser does not have enough knowledge to participate in our conversation about economics. We are two random dudes on the Internet. Therefore, you are claiming that two random dudes on the Internet have more knowledge than someone a college taught. Q.E.D. You claim that academia was bad at its job.

[B]rand recognition is far more important than quality...

Citation needed

[T]he hierarchical structure means things like politics become more important than talent when getting promotions...

My history professor told me that one of the reasons Napoleon was able to conquer most of Europe was because he gave promotions based on ability instead of nobility, which is what all other armies were doing. Unless you claim that armies are not hierarchical or that armies are somehow fundamentally different than businesses regarding promotions, I think this is a counterexample to your claim.

[E]specially when the people responsible for promotions are not capable of judging the talent of the people below them...

You are saying that if people are promoted to positions they are not qualified for, then people will be promoted to positions they are not qualified for. By the same logic, if people are promoted to positions they are qualified for, then people will be promoted to positions they are qualified for.

And hell, as long as people are going to the movies, they are going to watch *something* - giving them a name they recognize is far more important than making sure it's something good.

jewish_scientist wrote:These socio-economical structures came into existence for a reason, namely its dramatically increase efficiency.

I don't think so (and I say this without appealing to any authority at all. ) The thing is, these structures are power structures, and there is a kind of "survival instinct" to power structures. Those on top want to stay on top, and they have the power to do so. The degree to which they can do so is proportional to(*) the difference (or ratio) of the power difference and the degree to which they are actually stepping on those beneath them. Efficiency is not even in the mix.

You are talking about why a social structure that exist continues to exist. I am talking about why a social structure that does not exist was built. Our ideas are not mutually exclusive.

You know what's truly an example of sexual objectification/harassment of women? Even Wander/Wonder Woman wears a skimpy and tight outfit constantly like a Woman of the Night or something. Why are powerful Goddesses forced to dress like strippers? Sexual Harassment Epidemic at work again. And if you dare to question it like fourteen billion comic book people shall fly out and scream at you about being a militant feminist bitch barking about nothing.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

LOL ha-ha. I like her she sounds lovely. Anyways I know there are different versions and women are getting treated better now but they weren't before. Comic books sexually objectify women mostly and teach young men/young women to sexually objectify/harass women or even themselves!

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

jewish_scientist wrote:The job of colleges is to give teach people stuff. CorruptUser has a degree in economics. You claim that CorruptUser does not have enough knowledge to participate in our conversation about economics. We are two random dudes on the Internet. Therefore, you are claiming that two random dudes on the Internet have more knowledge than someone a college taught. Q.E.D. You claim that academia was bad at its job.

You are literally doing nothing more than looking for something to complain about, this time by saying that a minor in economics is supposed to mean you have learned everything about every economic system. However, since you do appear to be college educated according to your handle, it's obvious that at least some schools are terrible and leave their students without even a basic understanding of what education is for.

Hell, given your idiotic comment about highest grossing films and quality it's quite clear that you lack any understanding of the most basic part of being a scientist - interpreting data.

jewish_scientist wrote:

[B]rand recognition is far more important than quality...

Citation needed

Dude, you've done nothing but make the assumption that because capitalism tends towards large organizations that large organizations are more efficient - this is asserted without any reason to actually believe it. You want to say "citation needed" then why don't you back up something you have to say with some actual evidence - citations or examples at least. You quite obviously have not read shit about economics and have absolutely no clue about information asymmetry, and are just cherry picking points without even being able to actually rebut them.

I'm done with this shit. It's quite obvious that you are arguing in bad faith and have absolutely no interest in actually learning anything whatsoever about economics, or even thinking critically about the power structures in our society.

Behold your only true messiah. An entity of which you're a part.A vast and cold indifferent being. A grey clad mass without a heart.

This phenomenon of human behavior is actually well documented and used extensively in marketing, it's why pretty much every product with a major brand name spends outrageous amounts of money on advertising.

"New Coke" is the classic example where an established brand (the association of the flavor with the classic, even nostalgic imagery of the brand) overrode the more objective blind taste test evaluation of which product was better. As long as the brand of Coke was concealed people preferred the sweeter "New" flavor, but as soon as it was revealed that this would be replacing the iconic brand people would actually become hostile to the change.

We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Dauric wrote:...overrode the more objective blind taste test evaluation of which product was better. As long as the brand of Coke was concealed people preferred the sweeter...

That was not a scientific evaluation, it was a marketing gimmick. People preferred the first sip or two (which is all you get in that kind of test). It would be interesting to revisit the test but where participants had to drink three entire glasses (which is arguably closer to actual consumption). I suspect that the sweetness would become cloying, and participants would actually prefer the rougher taste of the original in the end.

I've not done this test with Coke, but I have noticed it in my experience with other beverages.

Only on xkcd can one start a discussion of sexual harassment and end with a discussion of the relative merits of blind taste testing.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Here is a good read on the subject of the pyschology of economics. Worth your time IMO. You might find it insightful. It has something to say. In the Wiki article I'm linking to, there is a link to a review on American Economic Association's Journal of Economic Literature. I haven't read the review.

The theories of economics have little to do with sexual harassment except in cases of class abuse. I'm calling y'all out for derailing. But anyways: Unwanted flirting. You're expected as a nubile young woman to flirt/smile with/at everyone. That opens you up to sexual harassment. Our society has strange rules.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

Ginger wrote:You're expected as a nubile young woman to flirt/smile with/at everyone.

Not in my experience. As a person, perhaps you are expected to be friendly and outgoing, but even so, there are plenty of people who aren't. At the very least, you are expected to not be hostile without provocation. I'll go with that one. Sure, one may hope that this {nubile young woman | strapping young man} would look positively on your attention, and become friends. But hope is not the same thing as expectation.

Humans are social animals; this leads to a bias towards gregariousness. But we still get to choose with whom to congregate. So, there will be plenty of missed signals - you don't know what's in the box until you open it.

Ginger wrote:The theories of economics have little to do with sexual harassment except in cases of class abuse.

The connection may be subtle, but it's there. Social interactions (abusive and otherwise) contain an element of transaction - in fact, there's an entire branch of psychology which deals with this. It's called (unsurprisingly) "Transactional Analysis". Economics deals in transactions as they pertain to money, and therefore does so on a much purer level. Nonetheless, there is insight to be gained. And the link provided (fast and slow thinking) applies quite aptly to social interactions.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Ginger wrote:You're expected as a nubile young woman to flirt/smile with/at everyone.

Not in my experience. As a person, perhaps you are expected to be friendly and outgoing, but even so, there are plenty of people who aren't. At the very least, you are expected to not be hostile without provocation. I'll go with that one. Sure, one may hope that this {nubile young woman | strapping young man} would look positively on your attention, and become friends. But hope is not the same thing as expectation.

Humans are social animals; this leads to a bias towards gregariousness. But we still get to choose with whom to congregate. So, there will be plenty of missed signals - you don't know what's in the box until you open it.

You're a fucking man you don't know how men approach young women and ORDER THEM to smile constantly. Anyways women are treated unfairly in terms of not being aggressive. If you show ANY aggression at all people will outcast you. They've done it to me. They call it, "Being ladylike." Oh but yes you as a human social beast can CHOOSE not to have strangers command you? Um. How do you control the behaviors of male strangers?

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

Ginger wrote:You're a fucking man you don't know how men approach young women and ORDER THEM to smile constantly.

Well, I don't do it, and I guess I don't hang around with people who do. And being hostile is frowned upon for men and for women, moreso of course in public-facing professions (where I suppose women are overrepresented).

Ginger wrote:Oh but yes you as a human social beast can CHOOSE not to have strangers command you? Um. How do you control the behaviors of male strangers?

I can't control them, but non-hostility (absent provocation) is the behavior I expect from them - male or female. And in general, they expect it from me. If I am hostile absent provocation, the consequences are less than ideal.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Ha-ha. I laugh heartlessly at your naive worldview. Men can be aggressive and dominate anytime they wanna. They do it and get away with illegal stuff and more because of their Patriarchy THEY set up. And men like ucim come down from the Heavens and tell women to be nicer and not provoke and MAYBE-Maybe they won't get sexually harassed. Sexual harassment epidemic continues by ucim's own words/attitudes.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

Ginger wrote:You're a fucking man you don't know how men approach young women and ORDER THEM to smile constantly. Anyways women are treated unfairly in terms of not being aggressive. If you show ANY aggression at all people will outcast you. They've done it to me. They call it, "Being ladylike." Oh but yes you as a human social beast can CHOOSE not to have strangers command you? Um. How do you control the behaviors of male strangers?

I work with the sort of people who find out a new housing development is on a flood-plain and say: "Good. Put some pakis in it and make 'em drown," who bring up the risk of a Christmas market being attacked with a truck and say: "It wouldn't happen if we threw all the Muslims into the North Sea," and reply: "Just shoot them on sight," who discuss the new receptionist in terms exactly like: "I'd shag it once just to say I'd done it but it's not wife material, is it?"I'm going to agree with ucim here. Even scum like us don't expect young women to flirt with everyone. To sit there and smile prettily while hearing a bunch of us thugs talking in very denigrating ways about women in general, yes, but not to flirt with everyone. It's possible to be pleasant company without flirting. Being pleasant company without anyone taking it as flirting, well, that may be impossible, but .....

..... nah, not going to say you'd be treated with more respect. More like "I don't know whether she's frigid or a dyke" is less disrespectful than "It'd be like throwing a carrot down the A1. You wouldn't want to touch the sides anyway, 'cause you'd catch something."

Yes, those are all actual quotes. SERIOUSLY. Yes, we're that bad. No, I can't change them all. Tyranny of the majority and all that.

I still think it's possible for a man to say "You really are very beautiful" in a non-demeaning, non-threatening, non-flirting way and for another to say the exact same words in a (casually) demeaning and (probably unintentionally) threatening way. There's a lot in eye contact, body posture, tone of voice et cetera.

Not really a problem that affects me, of course. To quote Bill, "I was too old for this shit fifteen years ago." I have no plans to disqualify myself from the Darwin Awards. Not even nearly.

On the topic of being told to smile, I (a man) have been told to smile by women plenty of times in my past -- now that I think about it, usually by women who turned out to be flirting with me -- and I always took it as a good-hearted attempt to cheer me up, to pull me out of whatever bad moon was making me frown. Which, just for that intention, did have the effect of cheering me up some. Because of this, the thing about women being upset at being told to smile really confused me when I first heard about it. Like, how is that harassing? I get by now how it can be (that comic above illustrates it well), but yeah... an anecdote, I don't know what my point is.

I'm super-happy-pleased that Sableagle's co-workers want to bang their receptionist and then not marry her. And the entire thing up there just proves my point: Men LIKE abusing women, and other races just for the dominant/submissive games. The world is their game. And they can be as aggressive as they wanna all the time. I'll take the advice about not flirting on board though. But yeah: Can't no one stop people from THINKING you're flirting and attacking you. So where's the answers for that?

Just remember Pfhorrest as you think back on it: Strangers own your body/smiles/mood not you ever-ever.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

Sableagle wrote:Oh, and if you liked the skimpy Wonder Woman costumes and were really happy about the outdated attitudes of my cow-irkers having persisted this long, you're going to love Xenoblade Chronicles 2.

Not to put too fine a point of it, I know all the twins of your cow-irkers. And maybe some of their mothers and fathers. I learned how to be still. I'm also one of the few humans who didn't like Wonder Women, old or new.

Pfhorrest wrote:On the topic of being told to smile, I (a man) have been told to smile by women plenty of times in my past -- now that I think about it, usually by women who turned out to be flirting with me -- and I always took it as a good-hearted attempt to cheer me up, to pull me out of whatever bad moon was making me frown. Which, just for that intention, did have the effect of cheering me up some. Because of this, the thing about women being upset at being told to smile really confused me when I first heard about it. Like, how is that harassing? I get by now how it can be (that comic above illustrates it well), but yeah... an anecdote, I don't know what my point is.

I'm not a woman, and I've been told to smile -- both by women and by men. It just makes me want to punch their teeth in.

I smile when I'm happy. You know what makes me happy? Not having strangers tell me to try and be happy.

Propositioning homeless women: Why men proposition me for a good time with veiled threats when I'm homeless? Or accuse Little Me of wanting to rape poor victim them. It's sexual harassment. Calling out a homeless woman for being a thieving whore while she's right in the room. And I was always forced to room with males in homeless shelters whom would try to be my "special friends." And talk to me constantly about their sex lives. More sexual harassment of homeless women 'cause they're so-so sexy.

Update: And I wanna-wanna read Morris Walters's article but... do I actually want to get traumatized by rape in Japan? CHOICES. ;O I read some. Good on the reporter for speaking out. And they had Security Camera Footage and nobody did a thing? Japan must suck worse than the USA for sexual harassment and that's saying something. Wow. Anyways I'm done being traumatized by her story.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

I just found out the reason an employee was objecting to their contact info being posted at work is that her technicians were using it to proposition her on the phone. Apparently it's a common issue for her; that's why she never gives out her number, which violates company policy about being on call. This information was given in confidence, so harassment won't be reported. She's afraid that any complaints will be a he said she said since there's no recording.Instead it'll be marked as insubordination on her employee record.

What a disturbing conversation. It's irritating that it won't be addressed.

sardia wrote:...that's why she never gives out her number, which violates company policy about being on call...

Simple solution - her job provides her with a cell phone; all calls recorded. Though this costs money, in the large scheme it's not much and the job should pay. If it becomes a big deal, then the job ought to pay anyway, as it's a workplace hazard.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

ucim wrote:Simple solution - her job provides her with a cell phone; all calls recorded. Though this costs money, in the large scheme it's not much and the job should pay. If it becomes a big deal, then the job ought to pay anyway, as it's a workplace hazard.

Jose

We use phone reimbursements instead of giving out phones, but that's a good idea for those that still get company phones. I just never considered this as an issue, just thought she was really private, and insubordinate. What do you mean by"big deal job ought to pay work place hazard"?

The idea is that she gets a company number, and doesn't have to reveal her private number. This is an easy way to do it; it probably even falls under the EOE accommodations laws (if they haven't been Trumped).

sardia wrote:[I] just thought she was really private, and insubordinate.

When being private is considered insubordination, we've already lost.

sardia wrote:What do you mean by"big deal job ought to pay work place hazard"?

If workplace phone harrassment is common enough that paying for it is expensive, then it's so common that it's a workplace hazard, and is the responsibility of the workplace to mitigate. It's not just one person being "too fragile for the workplace" (which EOE laws cover) but it's "the workplace being too hostile for people in general" (which is a problem with the workplace itself).

PS - your edit has a tag fail.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Sizik wrote:If she's in a one-party consent state, she could record inappropriate calls without having to tell the other person.

The recording isn't the thing, the getting a "not her own number" number is, so she can retain her personal privacy (which she should be entitled to anyway). The recording is because she's actually getting harassing calls; this would discourage them and weed out the perps in a manner which isn't against company policy.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

It's always gotta be the victim's job to report sexual harassment. We can sit here and brainstorm ways to force help upon an innocent woman all we wanna. She chose not to report and get marked up for insubordination. That's her right as a victim of sexual misconduct. Whenever I get raped I just feel embarrassed and ashamed like I wanna hide my face all shyly forever and ever and just disappear. Maybe she feels similarly?

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

sardia wrote:We use phone reimbursements instead of giving out phones, but that's a good idea for those that still get company phones. I just never considered this as an issue, just thought she was really private, and insubordinate. What do you mean by"big deal job ought to pay work place hazard"?

Do you get fully reimbursed for your phone bill? In which case they could just get a second phone use that for the company and have the company pay for it. It's pretty much the same as the company providing a phone for them.

The company is just not gonna give her a free phone and pay for it. And the fetish for brainstorming forceful interventions on sexual harassment victims is just gonna make it worse. They are gonna say it's Her Job to ward off unwanted comments/attentions. Or else she's going to get marked up again. Ordering them to give her a free out of the sexual harassment is gonna raise their hackles and they might just fire her forever.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

It's a set subsidy based on some formula. Corporate likes it because it's a stable cost and they don't need any infrastructure other than money, and the app. The ones arguing for free corporate phones aren't keeping up with best practices.

She's a smart person, I'm sure she calculated what the costs and benefits are. I'm guessing there's some cost to her (women) if you report it. I just don't see it directly. I only see an employee who's getting marked down, and unknown employees who are spending company money hitting on women. I can't wait until I replace most of them with robots. Or younger wage slaves.

PS if you want to argue phone policy with me, I'd be happy to do so in another thread.

Ginger wrote:The company is just not gonna give her a free phone and pay for it. And the fetish for brainstorming forceful interventions on sexual harassment victims is just gonna make it worse. They are gonna say it's Her Job to ward off unwanted comments/attentions. Or else she's going to get marked up again. Ordering them to give her a free out of the sexual harassment is gonna raise their hackles and they might just fire her forever.

*shrugs* My company actually refuses to pay a subsidy on personal phones and instead provides phones. No clue why since most find it obnoxious to have to carry two around and it's gotta be more expensive than even paying a small part of my personal phone bill, but anyways it's why I made the suggestion. Clearly "stop letting people harass her" is a better solution, though one I have no clue how to implement.

Chen wrote:Clearly "stop letting people harass her" is a better solution, though one I have no clue how to implement.

By making it possible for her to work for the company without making herself vulnerable (by disclosing her phone number), and leaving a clear audit trail (recording) of any harassment on the company phone. That's what a company phone (number) would do.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Yeah. Google Voice is great for this. My company pays for my phone, I set up a google voice # for work stuff that forwards to my real line. If I ever quit I can just ditch that number without having to give up my real phone #.

I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.

Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

elasto wrote:In this day and age, isn't it possible to have a virtual number that forwards to her real number?

That may or may not be sufficient, depending on whether or not she needs to make outgoing calls. She'd need caller ID spoofing too. And that's a real racket the phone company has got.

But that's another rant for another time.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.